Nikon D750 & D780

Landscapes, cars, bigger scenes/birds will take the extra sharpening, but I have found with smaller birds it doesn't take the extra oomph, especially with the larger crops usually involved.
 
snerkler said:
That's interesting. When I first started using LR I watched god knows how many videos from all sorts of folk such as Lydia, and Anthony Morghanti and they were adding 70+ sharpening on a lot of their images so assumed this was the norm :oops: :$
Click to expand...

Must be something wrong with me then, I rarely touch sharpening (maybe up to 50 if it really needs it), find my files sharp enough a lot of the time at LR default. 70+ :eek:
 
@snerkler I think @Swanseajack may be correct, I dont shoot the birds so maybe thats why I dont need to dial in as much, mostly portraits and randoms where I dont need to pull that extreme fine detail.
 
Last edited:
So has there been any press release or info about when we can expect to see D750s back in the country?

I'm a bit worried about repair turn around times and I have some photo sessions coming up!
 
Swanseajack said:
Landscapes, cars, bigger scenes/birds will take the extra sharpening, but I have found with smaller birds it doesn't take the extra oomph, especially with the larger crops usually involved.
Click to expand...

twist said:
@snerkler I think @Swanseajack may be correct, I dont shoot the birds so maybe thats why I dont need to dial in as much, mostly portraits and randoms where I dont need to pull that extreme fine detail.
Click to expand...

Thanks guys. that's what I'm starting to think, the larger the crop the more exaggerated the sharpening will look. Yeah @twist, I tend to add more sharpening to wildlife and landscapes than I do people (on the rare occasion I've taken them) and sports etc.

What's odd though is that I've just checked the redpoll shot I keep referring to and it has +74 sharpening and that doesn't look OTT. The other strange thing is that on my computer the tit pics look no different to the redpoll in terms of oversharpening, they've all been output the same way, all cropped similarly yet the tit pics look oversharpened on Flickr and massively over sharpened on here.
 
snerkler said:
Thanks guys. that's what I'm starting to think, the larger the crop the more exaggerated the sharpening will look. Yeah @twist, I tend to add more sharpening to wildlife and landscapes than I do people (on the rare occasion I've taken them) and sports etc.

What's odd though is that I've just checked the redpoll shot I keep referring to and it has +74 sharpening and that doesn't look OTT. The other strange thing is that on my computer the tit pics look no different to the redpoll in terms of oversharpening, they've all been output the same way, all cropped similarly yet the tit pics look oversharpened on Flickr and massively over sharpened on here.
Click to expand...

Just had a look at your Flickr link for the Redpoll (DSC 5749) and it seems to be over sharpened, I can see a halo around bird. They may look less due to the different lighting conditions as they were taken in woodland and the BT are on your fence and probably a more open area with light?

Try my settings I listed earlier for the BT / Redpoll and see how it compares. You can then see whats upping the sharpening, you, Flickr or the forum.
 
Last edited:
JJ! said:
So has there been any press release or info about when we can expect to see D750s back in the country?

I'm a bit worried about repair turn around times and I have some photo sessions coming up!
Click to expand...

Are you planning to buy another D750 while you wait for the repair? Hiring will be much more cost effective I guess, unless you are planning to have two bodies.
 
anibap said:
Are you planning to buy another D750 while you wait for the repair? Hiring will be much more cost effective I guess, unless you are planning to have two bodies.
Click to expand...

Will eventually get a 2nd if weddings go to plan and can afford another.

I'm waiting for repair but my mate wants a non imported D750 but struggling to find one and he said I could use it for the weddings if mine doesn't come back in time!
 
Errrrrggghhhhh he just told me he might get a 6D.....:eek:
 
Re: sharpening in LR it's interesting to read a lot of your don't use the masking value. I actually have mine set pretty high (80 or even 85 if an image I want to sharpen more), which allows me to take sharpening up to fairly high (40) values for pretty much all photos and as high as 60 for ones I really want to sharpen more (with the higher mask limiting what that affects).

I find that gives me a good edge where you expect an edge, but avoids creating too many artefacts. It doesn't however work with very high noise images...

not sure if any of that's helpful?
 
It's been an eye-opener to me reading how much sharpening you lot apply. Sharpening is the one thing I never mess with and just use the Lightroom default settings - whatever they are. :exit:
 
Swanseajack said:
Just had a look at your Flickr link for the Redpoll (DSC 5749) and it seems to be over sharpened, I can see a halo around bird. They may look less due to the different lighting conditions as they were taken in woodland and the BT are on your fence and probably a more open area with light?

Try my settings I listed earlier for the BT / Redpoll and see how it compares. You can then see whats upping the sharpening, you, Flickr or the forum.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll adjust it later.

Out of interest, do folk adjust sharpening to what looks best at normal viewing sizes, or what's best at 1:1?
 
T_J_G said:
@snerkler i barely add anything most of the time
Click to expand...
Do you shoot JPEG then as RAW files look flat to me and at least need some contrast/curve adjustment, some sharpening and possibly some vibrance/saturation?
 
snerkler said:
Thanks, I'll adjust it later.

Out of interest, do folk adjust sharpening to what looks best at normal viewing sizes, or what's best at 1:1?
Click to expand...
100% zoom most of the time as recommended, but at times say with portraits, I go with 50% as minimum.
 
pjm1 said:
Re: sharpening in LR it's interesting to read a lot of your don't use the masking value. I actually have mine set pretty high (80 or even 85 if an image I want to sharpen more), which allows me to take sharpening up to fairly high (40) values for pretty much all photos and as high as 60 for ones I really want to sharpen more (with the higher mask limiting what that affects).

I find that gives me a good edge where you expect an edge, but avoids creating too many artefacts. It doesn't however work with very high noise images...

not sure if any of that's helpful?
Click to expand...

I find masking really good for noise reduction too. As with everything, it is a careful balance before it looks liquidy
 
anibap said:
What raw converter do you use? Do you use any screen output sharpening?
Click to expand...

Lightroom, and I don't think I do. Sometimes I do, but most times I tend to forget as I'll only edit the files where I got the focus 100% bang on. I don't tend to try and rescue many shots.
 
snerkler said:
Do you shoot JPEG then as RAW files look flat to me and at least need some contrast/curve adjustment, some sharpening and possibly some vibrance/saturation?
Click to expand...

When I say 'anything' I meant sharpening, of course I'll add contrast. Although I never tend to touch the vibrance/saturation sliders.
 
Swanseajack said:
Just had a look at your Flickr link for the Redpoll (DSC 5749) and it seems to be over sharpened, I can see a halo around bird. They may look less due to the different lighting conditions as they were taken in woodland and the BT are on your fence and probably a more open area with light?

Try my settings I listed earlier for the BT / Redpoll and see how it compares. You can then see whats upping the sharpening, you, Flickr or the forum.
Click to expand...
OK been looking into the redpoll pic, again looks fine on my computer but much sharper on flickr. I've tried reducing sharpness and not adding any screen sharpening on output and it still looks sharper on flickr. I've taken 1:1 screen shots of each and the difference is marked, not sure if it'll show on here.

Screen%20Shot%202016-05-25%20at%2017.28.38_zpss7wzbvgs.png



Edit: Hmmm, you can see it but only just. Much more noticeable on my computer rather than posted via photobucket. Bloody flickr :lol:
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
OK been looking into the redpoll pic, again looks fine on my computer but much sharper on flickr. I've tried reducing sharpness and not adding any screen sharpening on output and it still looks sharper on flickr. I've taken 1:1 screen shots of each and the difference is marked, not sure if it'll show on here.

Screen%20Shot%202016-05-25%20at%2017.28.38_zpss7wzbvgs.png



Edit: Hmmm, you can see it but only just. Much more noticeable on my computer rather than posted via photobucket. Bloody flickr :LOL:
Click to expand...

the one on the left is showing more detail on my 27 iMac
 
Yep, left is flickr, right is the original file on my Macbook.
 
Spiritflier said:
Finally got around to finishing off the editing from last weekend's shoot with my gorgeous Other Half... I've posted half a dozen in the nude and glamour section but here's one that's safe for the group (I hope). :)

Click to expand...
Great image :) She`s very photogenic.
 
I leave the standard setting in LR but the important sharpening is for output. LR is dire for output sharpening IMO. I always run a batch in PS with an action. Have played with mogrify but still can't match my PS web sharpen. Rare I bother to use selective sharpen, images tend to be sharp enough with minimal applied, my web settings are quite strong but happy with applying across most images.
 
Some places not showing D750 stock until 1st August :jawdrop:
 
Cameracentre is showing in stock but I agree there is a shortage at the moment.

Definitely get on the bell to Nikon CS though, they are helpful when you complain to them directly rather than jsut submitting online forms.
 
Anywhere with confirmed stock? (I'm waiting to hear back from CameraWorld).

Would really like to pick one up in the next couple of weeks, and rather not go down the grey/Panamoz/DigitalRev/HDEW route.
 
At my limit with how close I can get, was at the minimum focussing distance of my lens (which is a quite large 8ft), and then cropped heavily. Think I need a crop body for wildlife ;)

DOF about 6mm at 8ft at 600mm :eek:


DSC_7798 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top